XXL size

tom hyle · 9th April 2005, 03:40 PM

That is one thing with someone else's old armour; a sword you can usually at least hold wrong somehow if the hilt is too small for you.....

Jens Nordlunde · 9th April 2005, 04:45 PM

I think it is interesting what Ariel writes, and I have seen hints at this before about Europeans, but there must also be a ‘minimum’ size from the start – at least within the span of time where we operate.

I have seen discussions, where it was suggested, that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon. To my opinion that would not last long in a fight, the hand would be ‘made’ to fit the hilt – one finger lost.

Amongst the Indians I have meet, there are small ones and tall ones, just like with the Europeans, but I also think that they had a finer bone structure, which of course would give a less ‘beefy’ hand.

Is this true, or do I only think it is?

tom hyle · 10th April 2005, 05:15 AM

I pretty much follow and agree. I've seen some BIG Sikhs. There is also the legend (which actually doesn't seem right to me, because of the numbers and multi-caste ownership of tulwars (?)) of the tulwar as a sword of aristocrats who never work, and work makes your hands larger and flatter, like an unbound foot, over time. They guy with the Guiness book fingernails is/was a Hindoo aristocrat following (to an extreme) a tradition of displaying the non-use of one's hands. I can hold at least 1/2 of tulwars reasonably well, though tightly gripped by disc and quillons, and about 1/4 of those comfortably and not tightly. I am a fairly large human. You've seen me next to Therion, but you might not know that Therion is at least a 1/2 giant. My sister, say, a slim and athletic woman (Down youse! Down, I say!) could probably hold any tulwar I've seen comfortably. I call her slim and athletic, but she is about the size of most "natural" normal size olden days men. Then there's this; the tulwars I've handled have all been brought to US, and may be unduly biased by the large hands of Americans, if you see what I mean.

Jens Nordlunde · 10th April 2005, 10:23 AM

Let us move to another kind of sword, the one on the picture. It is from the Malabar Coast (Stone, page 594, #4). This hilt is even narrower than the tulwar hilt, but if you watch old paintings and sculptures, you will notice that it is held with three fingers, plus the thumb, around the grip, and the rest of the hand around the pommel. Why it is like that I don’t know.

tom hyle · 10th April 2005, 10:33 AM

Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.

Federico · 11th April 2005, 10:53 PM

One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.

Jens Nordlunde · 12th April 2005, 01:43 PM

On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt.
The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century.

12th April 2005, 01:43 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	On the picture you can see how I think they held the swords with the small hilts. Part of the palm of the hand rested against the flat pommel. If this is so, when stabbing, it would almost be like stabbing with a katar - very powerfull. This kind of grip is of course impossible with a tulwar hilt. The picture is a Kashmeri bronze. If I remember correctly it is ealier than 15th century. Attached Images

9th April 2005, 03:40 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That is one thing with someone else's old armour; a sword you can usually at least hold wrong somehow if the hilt is too small for you.....

9th April 2005, 04:45 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think it is interesting what Ariel writes, and I have seen hints at this before about Europeans, but there must also be a ‘minimum’ size from the start – at least within the span of time where we operate. I have seen discussions, where it was suggested, that the Indians held their index finger around the quillon. To my opinion that would not last long in a fight, the hand would be ‘made’ to fit the hilt – one finger lost. Amongst the Indians I have meet, there are small ones and tall ones, just like with the Europeans, but I also think that they had a finer bone structure, which of course would give a less ‘beefy’ hand. Is this true, or do I only think it is?

10th April 2005, 05:15 AM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I pretty much follow and agree. I've seen some BIG Sikhs. There is also the legend (which actually doesn't seem right to me, because of the numbers and multi-caste ownership of tulwars (?)) of the tulwar as a sword of aristocrats who never work, and work makes your hands larger and flatter, like an unbound foot, over time. They guy with the Guiness book fingernails is/was a Hindoo aristocrat following (to an extreme) a tradition of displaying the non-use of one's hands. I can hold at least 1/2 of tulwars reasonably well, though tightly gripped by disc and quillons, and about 1/4 of those comfortably and not tightly. I am a fairly large human. You've seen me next to Therion, but you might not know that Therion is at least a 1/2 giant. My sister, say, a slim and athletic woman (Down youse! Down, I say!) could probably hold any tulwar I've seen comfortably. I call her slim and athletic, but she is about the size of most "natural" normal size olden days men. Then there's this; the tulwars I've handled have all been brought to US, and may be unduly biased by the large hands of Americans, if you see what I mean.

10th April 2005, 10:23 AM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Let us move to another kind of sword, the one on the picture. It is from the Malabar Coast (Stone, page 594, #4). This hilt is even narrower than the tulwar hilt, but if you watch old paintings and sculptures, you will notice that it is held with three fingers, plus the thumb, around the grip, and the rest of the hand around the pommel. Why it is like that I don’t know. Attached Images

10th April 2005, 10:33 AM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Wow, real bizarro; switching to a 1/2 push-dagger type grip, as seen in a variety of styles re smallsword? Some African swords have these like 2 inch handles where I can only imagine the usually but not always small pommel resting within the hand, even in like the hollow of the center of the palm; I mean, normal or small size humans like the W/C African aborigines (pygmies)aren't THAT small; about nipple high on me, usually, and then the much more nunerous Bantu race is a genetically large and also a beef eating people, not unlike (and in many other ways not unlike) Europeans.......a notably k(e)ris panjang-like blade there, I think, BTW.

11th April 2005, 10:53 PM	#6
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	One thing I would like to note, the size difference has often been over-exaggerated. At the turn of the century (Im forgetting the text, maybe its in History of Sulu by Saleeby), in PI the average height of a "Moro" male was 5'4", and of course there were taller guys around. Now Im only 5'8" and most of my Moro swords fit quite well, Im sure if youre 6'6" the difference may be severe, but Ive often heard people complain about size differences when they are 5'6" using a sword made for someone only a little bit smaller than them. I just dont see 2" in height making drastic hand size differences. Then you got guys who are small with big hands (my hands are just as big as my 6'4" room-mate), so the way I figure it, while certainly as people got larger grips probably grew, I just dont see small height differences (of course this is not always the case) making huge hilt differences. Anyways, just my opinion for what its worth. Excellent discussion so far.